My views on objective morality

[bennyboy]

No.

You might BELIEVE it.  But you don't get to say it's "logical to me."  Either it is logical or it isn't.  And it isn't.  And to be blunt, if you can't see the logical inconsistencies in your religion, you are (at least in this area of your life) not thinking logically.

The idea of an all-knowing, all-loving God who allows child rape isn't logical, because as YOU YOURSELF have repeatedly stated, child rape is objectively evil.  If there is good in it, like the child's rape will somehow allow God to keep the Earth from falling into the sun or something, then it is in fact NOT objectively evil.  If rape is, in fact, objectively evil, and God allows rape, then God is failing to remove evil from the universe, and is doing so deliberately.  Such a God cannot be called good.  Therefore, one of the following must be true: 1) morality is not objective; 2) God is not good.

I'd mention, by the way, that your religious ideas aren't consistent with either the Catholic faith, or the Bible, or with any mainstream religious tradition.  I get the sense that you haven't studied the Bible or any academic arguments, and that instead you focus on a couple religious ideas that make you feel warm and fuzzy-- while ignoring 99% of the doctrines of your religion.  Again, we are back to you being a generally good person, and IDENTIFYING with an institution which you cannot actually fully support (since you haven't worked to fully understand it).  Am I wrong about this?

Even with objective morality, it is possible to have conditions in which you can't have one good without allowing a greater evil. That is the position CL thinks God is in, if I'm understanding her right. I'm pretty sure the Catholic version of God's omnipotence doesn't include overcoming paradoxes. God can't make a square a circle without making it 'not a square'.  I'm sure CL accepts the leg of theodicy that says God is omnibenevolent, probably the 'maximally benevolent' version. It therefore follows that God cannot, due to his nature, do anything in a given situation that is not the maximally benevolent thing. That means in every situation where it might appear that God is not doing so, it is because we do not have all the information; which God, in his omniscience, does.

Read what you just quoted me saying.  CL has claimed that rape is objectively evil.  However, CL and you are implying that there are some cases where allowing a rape is necessary because it serves the greater good.  So in that case, rape is in fact NOT objectively evil: it would be evil not to allow the rape.

[J a c k]

I posted some things that offended CL before she left. I take responsibility for it. The people that have been taking the heat are not the only ones that CL felt hurt by. I was one of them. Actually, I was not as patient as Lady for Camus or Hanky. I was emotional. This topic is a trigger to me. It hits some of my nerves that I try to keep hidden. I spoke as I would have to any other theist given the topic at hand.

When I saw how it hurt me to even talk about it, and that she was also hurt, I realized this was not something that would end well, if I kept going. I said I'd leave, made another post to reply to something she said, and someone reminded me that I said I would leave, so I should leave. They were right. So, I stopped posting. 

I promised I wouldn't come back, but I don't think it's right for others to be getting all the blame. I just came here to say I'm around, in case spankings need to be thrown my way. I'm owning up to my part. I still think the way I do, though. I'll be around in case I'm needed for sitting in a corner, or stuff.

[bennyboy]

Is there a mod action?? Maybe I'll have to go through the 20 pages I missed because I saw you being nothing but respectful up to page 52. And I didn't see anyone violating any rules except maybe bennyboy when he said about CL maybe not being a woman. It might be considered a personal attack or bringing something too personal into the discussion. It's definitely not against the rules to tell someone to go fuck themselves the last I checked.

Yes, that was Benny, not myself! I don't think Benny deserves mod action for that, but I don't want that comment mis-attributed to myself, and I believe that was so implied by Luckie. I did make a comment in the past which CL got upset about when I attempted to play the devil's advocate in regard to the attitudes of clergy men, but I would not say anything that crass to her, regardless of how I feel on friends of hers here who have made her status rather offensively privileged.

Okay I see a lot of activity along these lines since yesterday, so let me set the record straight for those of you who haven't bothered to, you know, actually read what I said about CL and her appearance.

I never said anything bad about CL's appearance, nor about her choice of avatar.  I said that people in this thread are treating her differently than other theists, and that this different treatment isn't due to the quality of her thoughts or logic-- since I don't see that there IS much quality to her thoughts or logic.  I said people are treating her differently because of who they think she is, and scolded THOSE people for being shallow: shame on them for letting feelings supercede thought.  I guarantee if I said the same shit about Harris or other theists here, nobody would even be talking about this shit.  The fact is that CL has presented nothing but wishy-thinking, puppy-dogs and rainbows, and absolutely no coherent philosophical argument in favor of objective morality.

This is what I do, and will continue to do, everytime a theist enters the "Philosophy" section with wishy-thinking, and I don't much care how nice people think that particular theist is, since that's irrelevant to the doing of philosophy. I mean, look at the outrageously offensive shit Rhythm has said to me and vice versa, and we were at least attempting to put together logical ideas-- where was the talk of mod action then? There was none. So from whence does this double standard come that a theist can invade my precious Philosophy section spewing wishy-thinking with very little attempt to support it with. . . ya know. . . IDEAS and LOGIC and EVIDENCE and stuff?

[Losty]

I posted some things that offended CL before she left. I take responsibility for it. The people that have been taking the heat are not the only ones that CL felt hurt by. I was one of them. Actually, I was not as patient as Lady for Camus or Hanky. I was emotional. This topic is a trigger to me. It hits some of my nerves that I try to keep hidden. I spoke as I would have to any other theist given the topic at hand.

When I saw how it hurt me to even talk about it, and that she was also hurt, I realized this was not something that would end well, if I kept going. I said I'd leave, made another post to reply to something she said, and someone reminded me that I said I would leave, so I should leave. They were right. So, I stopped posting. 

I promised I wouldn't come back, but I don't think it's right for others to be getting all the blame. I just came here to say I'm around, in case spankings need to be thrown my way. I'm owning up to my part. I still think the way I do, though. I'll be around in case I'm needed for sitting in a corner, or stuff.

Can I get spanked with you?

[LadyForCamus]

I posted some things that offended CL before she left. I take responsibility for it. The people that have been taking the heat are not the only ones that CL felt hurt by. I was one of them. Actually, I was not as patient as Lady for Camus or Hanky. I was emotional. This topic is a trigger to me. It hits some of my nerves that I try to keep hidden. I spoke as I would have to any other theist given the topic at hand.

When I saw how it hurt me to even talk about it, and that she was also hurt, I realized this was not something that would end well, if I kept going. I said I'd leave, made another post to reply to something she said, and someone reminded me that I said I would leave, so I should leave. They were right. So, I stopped posting. 

I promised I wouldn't come back, but I don't think it's right for others to be getting all the blame. I just came here to say I'm around, in case spankings need to be thrown my way. I'm owning up to my part. I still think the way I do, though. I'll be around in case I'm needed for sitting in a corner, or stuff.

Can I get spanked with you?

Ooo! Threesome! [emoji13]

[J a c k]

Let's go. 

[rexbeccarox]

Let's go. 

Only if I get to do the spanking...

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Yes, that was Benny, not myself! I don't think Benny deserves mod action for that, but I don't want that comment mis-attributed to myself, and I believe that was so implied by Luckie. I did make a comment in the past which CL got upset about when I attempted to play the devil's advocate in regard to the attitudes of clergy men, but I would not say anything that crass to her, regardless of how I feel on friends of hers here who have made her status rather offensively privileged.

Okay I see a lot of activity along these lines since yesterday, so let me set the record straight for those of you who haven't bothered to, you know, actually read what I said about CL and her appearance.

I never said anything bad about CL's appearance, nor about her choice of avatar.  I said that people in this thread are treating her differently than other theists, and that this different treatment isn't due to the quality of her thoughts or logic-- since I don't see that there IS much quality to her thoughts or logic.  I said people are treating her differently because of who they think she is, and scolded THOSE people for being shallow: shame on them for letting feelings supercede thought.  I guarantee if I said the same shit about Harris or other theists here, nobody would even be talking about this shit.  The fact is that CL has presented nothing but wishy-thinking, puppy-dogs and rainbows, and absolutely no coherent philosophical argument in favor of objective morality.

This is what I do, and will continue to do, everytime a theist enters the "Philosophy" section with wishy-thinking, and I don't much care how nice people think that particular theist is, since that's irrelevant to the doing of philosophy.  I mean, look at the outrageously offensive shit Rhythm has said to me and vice versa, and we were at least attempting to put together logical ideas-- where was the talk of mod action then?  There was none.  So from whence does this double standard come that a theist can invade my precious Philosophy section spewing wishy-thinking with very little attempt to support it with. . . ya know. . . IDEAS and LOGIC and EVIDENCE and stuff?

That's true, you didn't in fact call the actuality of her femininity into question at all, and that accusation almost got accepted de facto! I wouldn't have said anything about her "jugs", but I do agree with you that there really is a problem when one person is protected so fiercely by her friends that she is immune to being questioned on her own words. It's almost understandable because it's very easy to like such a good-natured person who appears to be so innocent, and probably is, but in a community which values honest and logical discourse, everybody must stand or fall on what they say. Nymphadora in particular is doing her no real favors.

[J a c k]

Let's go. 

Only if I get to do the spanking...

Empress! 
Come at me. 

[bennyboy]

Let's go. 

Only if I get to do the spanking...

I gotta say. . . I don't care who's spanking who, just don't forget to invite me!